Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation, 16707-16709 [2013-06107]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2013 / Notices INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Docket No. 2943] Certain Electronic Devices Having Placeshifting or Display Replication Functionality and Products Containing Same; Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Electronic Devices Having Placeshifting or Display Replication Functionality and Products Containing Same; DN 2943; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant’s filing under section 210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS. 1 and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC. 2 The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS. 3 Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 1 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. 2 United States International Trade Commission (USITC): http://edis.usitc.gov. 3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. VerDate Mar<14>2013 15:16 Mar 15, 2013 Jkt 229001 of Sling Media, Inc. on March 12, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices having placeshifting or display replication functionality and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents Belkin International, Inc. of CA; Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. of CA; and C2 Microsystems, Inc. of CA. Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that: (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States; (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders; (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded; (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant’s licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers. Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16707 stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2943’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures. 4) Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. 5 This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). By order of the Commission. Issued: March 13, 2013. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–06138 Filed 3–15–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–807] Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has terminated the abovecaptioned investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and has issued a limited SUMMARY: 4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/ rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf. 5 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 16708 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2013 / Notices exclusion order directed against infringing products of the following respondents previously found in default: Nextar Inc. (‘‘Nextar’’) of La Verne, California; WinAccord Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan and WinAccord U.S.A., Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, ‘‘the WinAccord respondents’’); Aiptek International Inc. (‘‘Aiptek’’) of Hsinchu, Taiwan; and Pandigital, Inc. (‘‘Pandigital’’) of Dublin, California (collectively, ‘‘the defaulting respondents’’). The Commission has also issued cease and desist orders directed against these defaulting respondents. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on September 27, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited, LLC (‘‘TPL’’) of Cupertino, California. 76 FR 59737–38. The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital photo frames and image display devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (‘‘the ’623 patent’’); 7,162,549; 7,295,443; and 7,522,424. The complaint further alleged the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission’s notice of investigation named twenty respondents including Nextar; the WinAccord respondents; Aiptek; Pandigital; Action Electronics Co., Ltd. (‘‘Action’’) of Taoyuan County, Taiwan; Aluratek, Inc. (‘‘Aluratek’’) of Tustin, California; Audiovox VerDate Mar<14>2013 15:16 Mar 15, 2013 Jkt 229001 Corporation (‘‘Audiovox’’) of Happauge, New York; CEIVA Logic, Inc. (‘‘CEIVA’’) of Burbank, California; Circus World Displays Ltd. (‘‘Circus’’) of Niagra Falls, Canada; Coby Electronics Corporation (‘‘Coby’’) of Lake Success, New York; Curtis International, Ltd. (‘‘Curtis’’) of Ontario, Canada; Digital Spectrum Solutions, Inc. (‘‘Digital Spectrum’’) of Irvine, California; Eastman Kodak Company (‘‘Eastman Kodak’’) of Rochester, New York; Mustek Systems, Inc. (‘‘Mustek’’) of Hsinchu Taiwan; Royal Consumer Information Products, Inc. (‘‘Royal Consumer’’) of Somerset, New Jersey and Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York (collectively, ‘‘the Sony respondents’’); Transcend Information, Inc. (‘‘Transcend’’) of Taipei, Taiwan; and Viewsonic Corporation (‘‘Viewsonic’’) of Walnut, California. The complaint and notice of investigation were served on all respondents. See Notice of Investigation, Certificate of Service (Sept. 22, 2011) (EDIS Document 459720). No Commission investigative attorney participated in the investigation. On November 10 and 30, 2011, respectively, the Commission determined not to review initial determinations (‘‘IDs’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) terminating the investigation as to Coby and Aluratek based on settlement agreements. On December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Circus based on a settlement agreement. On January 25, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Curtis based on a settlement agreement. On February 10 and 23, 2012, respectively, the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to Royal Consumer and Viewsonic based on settlement agreements. On March 16, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to CEIVA based on a settlement agreement. On April 11, 2012, the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to Eastman Kodak and Mustek, respectively, based on consent order stipulations. On May 24, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Audiovox based on a settlement agreement. Also, on May 24 and 29, 2012, respectively, the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to the ’623 patent with respect to Pandigital, PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 and terminating Digital Spectrum, based on consent order stipulations. On June 20, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Action based on a consent order stipulation. On July 26, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Transcend based on a consent order stipulation. On October 3, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to the Sony respondents based on a consent order stipulation. On December 6 and 22, 2011, respectively, the ALJ issued IDs finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default, pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, because these respondents did not respond to the complaint and notice of investigation, or to Order Nos. 13 and/or 15 to show cause why it should not be found in default. On January 3 and 9, 2012, respectively, the Commission determined not to review the IDs finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default. The Commission found that the statutory requirements of section 337(g)(1)(A)–(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)–(E)) were met with respect to Aiptek, Nextar, and the WinAccord respondents. Accordingly, pursuant to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)), the Commission presumed the facts alleged in the complaint to be true. On March 8, 2012, complainant TPL filed a declaration requesting immediate relief against defaulting respondent Aiptek under Commission rule 210.16(c)(1), 19 CFR 210.16(c)(1), which it later withdrew. On October 9, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 47, directing Pandigital to show cause why it should not be found in default and in violation of section 337 pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17 because it did not file a pre-hearing statement and brief as required by the ALJ’s Procedural Schedule. As of November 7, 2012, Pandigital had not responded to Order No. 47 and the ALJ issued an ID finding Pandigital in default and in violation of section 337. He also extended the target date in this investigation to March 7, 2013. On December 7, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the ID finding Pandigital in default and in violation of section 337. The Commission also requested public briefing on remedy, the public interest, and bonding with respect to Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, and the WinAccord respondents and requested that TPL address certain issues related to remedy and bonding. 77 FR 74220–21 (Dec. 13, 2012). On December 21, 2012, TPL E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2013 / Notices submitted responsive briefing including a proposed limited exclusion order directed to the covered products of Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, and the WinAccord respondents and cease and desist orders directed to each of the defaulting respondents. The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief includes a limited exclusion order prohibiting: (1) The unlicensed entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11–12, and 14 of the ’443 patent, claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the ’424 patent, or claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19, and 21 of the ’549 patent, which are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Pandigital or one of the WinAccord respondents, or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns; (2) the unlicensed entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the ’443 patent or claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the ’424 patent, which are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Nextar or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or its successors or assigns; and (3) the unlicensed entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 11–12 of the ’443 patent or claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the ’424 patent, which are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Aiptek or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or its successors or assigns. Appropriate relief also includes cease and desist orders prohibiting: (1) Pandigital or either of the WinAccord respondents from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for digital photo frames and image display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11–12, and 14 of the ’443 patent, claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the ’424 patent, or claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19, and 21 of the ’549 patent; (2) Nextar from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for VerDate Mar<14>2013 15:16 Mar 15, 2013 Jkt 229001 sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for digital photo frames and image display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the ’443 patent or claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the ’424 patent; and (3) Aiptek from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for digital photo frames and image display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 11–12 of the ’443 patent or claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the ’424 patent. The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in sections 337(d), (f), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f), and (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or the cease and desist orders. Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the covered products is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission’s orders were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance. The Commission has terminated this investigation. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50). Issued: March 12, 2013. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–06107 Filed 3–15–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE–13–008] Sunshine Act Meeting United States International Trade Commission. TIME AND DATE: March 21, 2013 at 11 a.m. PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000. AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 STATUS: 16709 Open to the public. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agendas for future meetings: none 2. Minutes 3. Ratification List 4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–489 and 731–TA–1201 (Final) (Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners’ opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before April 4, 2013. 5. Outstanding action jackets: none In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Dated: March 14, 2013. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–06265 Filed 3–14–13; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–666 (Modification Proceeding)] Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (‘‘CCFL’’) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing Same; Commission’s Determination To Institute a Modification Proceeding; Modification of the September 25, 2009 Consent Order; Termination of the Proceeding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding, modify the Commission’s September 25, 2009 Consent Order, and terminate the modification proceeding. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2737. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16707-16709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06107]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-807]


Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and 
Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and 
Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has terminated the above-captioned investigation under 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and has issued a 
limited

[[Page 16708]]

exclusion order directed against infringing products of the following 
respondents previously found in default: Nextar Inc. (``Nextar'') of La 
Verne, California; WinAccord Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan and WinAccord 
U.S.A., Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, ``the WinAccord 
respondents''); Aiptek International Inc. (``Aiptek'') of Hsinchu, 
Taiwan; and Pandigital, Inc. (``Pandigital'') of Dublin, California 
(collectively, ``the defaulting respondents''). The Commission has also 
issued cease and desist orders directed against these defaulting 
respondents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission 
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter 
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 
205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on September 27, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Technology 
Properties Limited, LLC (``TPL'') of Cupertino, California. 76 FR 
59737-38. The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into 
the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the 
United States after importation of certain digital photo frames and 
image display devices and components thereof by reason of infringement 
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (``the '623 patent''); 
7,162,549; 7,295,443; and 7,522,424. The complaint further alleged the 
existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of 
investigation named twenty respondents including Nextar; the WinAccord 
respondents; Aiptek; Pandigital; Action Electronics Co., Ltd. 
(``Action'') of Taoyuan County, Taiwan; Aluratek, Inc. (``Aluratek'') 
of Tustin, California; Audiovox Corporation (``Audiovox'') of Happauge, 
New York; CEIVA Logic, Inc. (``CEIVA'') of Burbank, California; Circus 
World Displays Ltd. (``Circus'') of Niagra Falls, Canada; Coby 
Electronics Corporation (``Coby'') of Lake Success, New York; Curtis 
International, Ltd. (``Curtis'') of Ontario, Canada; Digital Spectrum 
Solutions, Inc. (``Digital Spectrum'') of Irvine, California; Eastman 
Kodak Company (``Eastman Kodak'') of Rochester, New York; Mustek 
Systems, Inc. (``Mustek'') of Hsinchu Taiwan; Royal Consumer 
Information Products, Inc. (``Royal Consumer'') of Somerset, New Jersey 
and Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of America of 
New York, New York (collectively, ``the Sony respondents''); Transcend 
Information, Inc. (``Transcend'') of Taipei, Taiwan; and Viewsonic 
Corporation (``Viewsonic'') of Walnut, California. The complaint and 
notice of investigation were served on all respondents. See Notice of 
Investigation, Certificate of Service (Sept. 22, 2011) (EDIS Document 
459720). No Commission investigative attorney participated in the 
investigation.
    On November 10 and 30, 2011, respectively, the Commission 
determined not to review initial determinations (``IDs'') issued by the 
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') terminating the 
investigation as to Coby and Aluratek based on settlement agreements. 
On December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review an ID 
terminating the investigation as to Circus based on a settlement 
agreement. On January 25, 2012, the Commission determined not to review 
an ID terminating the investigation as to Curtis based on a settlement 
agreement. On February 10 and 23, 2012, respectively, the Commission 
determined not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to Royal 
Consumer and Viewsonic based on settlement agreements. On March 16, 
2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the 
investigation as to CEIVA based on a settlement agreement. On April 11, 
2012, the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the 
investigation as to Eastman Kodak and Mustek, respectively, based on 
consent order stipulations. On May 24, 2012, the Commission determined 
not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Audiovox based 
on a settlement agreement. Also, on May 24 and 29, 2012, respectively, 
the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the 
investigation as to the '623 patent with respect to Pandigital, and 
terminating Digital Spectrum, based on consent order stipulations. On 
June 20, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID 
terminating the investigation as to Action based on a consent order 
stipulation. On July 26, 2012, the Commission determined not to review 
an ID terminating the investigation as to Transcend based on a consent 
order stipulation. On October 3, 2012, the Commission determined not to 
review an ID terminating the investigation as to the Sony respondents 
based on a consent order stipulation.
    On December 6 and 22, 2011, respectively, the ALJ issued IDs 
finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, because these respondents did not respond to 
the complaint and notice of investigation, or to Order Nos. 13 and/or 
15 to show cause why it should not be found in default. On January 3 
and 9, 2012, respectively, the Commission determined not to review the 
IDs finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default. 
The Commission found that the statutory requirements of section 
337(g)(1)(A)-(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E)) were met with respect to 
Aiptek, Nextar, and the WinAccord respondents. Accordingly, pursuant to 
section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule 210.16(c) 
(19 CFR 210.16(c)), the Commission presumed the facts alleged in the 
complaint to be true.
    On March 8, 2012, complainant TPL filed a declaration requesting 
immediate relief against defaulting respondent Aiptek under Commission 
rule 210.16(c)(1), 19 CFR 210.16(c)(1), which it later withdrew.
    On October 9, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 47, directing 
Pandigital to show cause why it should not be found in default and in 
violation of section 337 pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17 because it did not 
file a pre-hearing statement and brief as required by the ALJ's 
Procedural Schedule. As of November 7, 2012, Pandigital had not 
responded to Order No. 47 and the ALJ issued an ID finding Pandigital 
in default and in violation of section 337. He also extended the target 
date in this investigation to March 7, 2013.
    On December 7, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the ID 
finding Pandigital in default and in violation of section 337. The 
Commission also requested public briefing on remedy, the public 
interest, and bonding with respect to Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, and 
the WinAccord respondents and requested that TPL address certain issues 
related to remedy and bonding. 77 FR 74220-21 (Dec. 13, 2012). On 
December 21, 2012, TPL

[[Page 16709]]

submitted responsive briefing including a proposed limited exclusion 
order directed to the covered products of Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, 
and the WinAccord respondents and cease and desist orders directed to 
each of the defaulting respondents.
    The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief 
includes a limited exclusion order prohibiting: (1) The unlicensed 
entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components 
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11-12, and 14 of the 
'443 patent, claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, or claims 1, 7, 
11, 17, 19, and 21 of the '549 patent, which are manufactured abroad by 
or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Pandigital or one 
of the WinAccord respondents, or any of their affiliated companies, 
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related 
business entities, or their successors or assigns; (2) the unlicensed 
entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components 
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the '443 patent 
or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, which are manufactured 
abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Nextar 
or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, 
contractors, or other related business entities, or its successors or 
assigns; and (3) the unlicensed entry of digital photo frames and image 
display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of 
claims 9 and 11-12 of the '443 patent or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the 
'424 patent, which are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are 
imported by or on behalf of, Aiptek or any of its affiliated companies, 
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related 
business entities, or its successors or assigns. Appropriate relief 
also includes cease and desist orders prohibiting: (1) Pandigital or 
either of the WinAccord respondents from conducting any of the 
following activities in the United States: importing, selling, 
marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring 
(except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors 
for digital photo frames and image display devices and components 
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11-12, and 14 of the 
'443 patent, claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, or claims 1, 7, 
11, 17, 19, and 21 of the '549 patent; (2) Nextar from conducting any 
of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling, 
marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring 
(except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors 
for digital photo frames and image display devices and components 
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the '443 patent 
or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent; and (3) Aiptek from 
conducting any of the following activities in the United States: 
importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for 
sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents 
or distributors for digital photo frames and image display devices and 
components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 11-12 of 
the '443 patent or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent.
    The Commission has further determined that the public interest 
factors enumerated in sections 337(d), (f), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 
1337(d), (f), and (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited 
exclusion order or the cease and desist orders. Finally, the Commission 
has determined that a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered 
value of the covered products is required to permit temporary 
importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 
1337(j)). The Commission's orders were delivered to the President and 
to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
    The Commission has terminated this investigation. The authority for 
the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 
210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50).

    Issued: March 12, 2013.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-06107 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P